Birth Certificates

By Anonymous on Wed, 03/18/2015 - 01:10

Forums

The citations for State-level Certificates (EE 9.41) list only the year of birth (or death) and don't include the location or county of the birth (or death).

Why is the exact date not used and why is the location (city etc.) or county not used?

I did some head scratching and came up with this citation (First Reference Note) that included the missing information:

Nebraska, State Department of Health - Division of Vital Statistics, Certificate of Delayed Birth Registration, no. 2-135102, 04 Feb 1904 (issued 10 Dec 1949), Harvard, Clay County, Viola Florence Gross; Nebraska Department of Health & Human Services, Division of Public Health, Vital Records, Lincoln, Nebraska

While it includes the missing information, it doesn't seem quite right.  The location/county information seems out-of-place, for example.  I'm concerned that I'm not understanding something about this type of citation.

Any pointers are appreciated!

Regards,

Brian Gross

 

 

Submitted bystoneon Thu, 03/19/2015 - 11:49

Brian,

  I was just working on citing a state level certificate yesterday at the FHL in SLC.  I am no expert, but here is what I came up with:

-

Michigan Department of Health - Vital Records Section, death certificate 363-1464 (1923), Kate Anderson died 24 December 1923; Michigan Department of Vital Records, Lansing; FHL microfilm 1,973,054, item 2.

-

Note that according to EE 9.41 for the First Reference Note, there is no comma after the state name and the name of the certificate is not capitalized. 

I agree with you that there could be value in listing the complete date of issue for the certificate inside the parenthesis since in my case above, the certificates are filed in the same order as the issue date.  On the other hand, it may be redundant since the certificate numbers are in the same order as the issue date.  The second argument won the day in my mind.

When listing dates, I have noticed that in the EE examples that I have seen, dates are written as d month yyyy, so 4 February 1904 instead of 04 Feb 1904.

I like putting the actual event date in the ID of the person for my quick reference.  In your case, I would think that it is even more important to note that there is a significant difference between the event date and the recording date because that helps determine the credibility of the document.

I also thought about putting the county information in the citation.  It seems like a good idea to document.  However, since this is a state level document, putting the county in the citation could be confusing and cause someone to go looking for the document at the county level instead of the state level.  I wen't back and forth on this in my mind, and the second argument eventually won. 

Can you tell that I have a lot of internal debates in my head?   :^)

In the respository, you can probably shorten it down because we know that we are in Nebraska.  Also, I would suggest replacing the "&" with "and" for two reasons: 1) while it is used at the top of their website, it doesn't appear to be in the official name of the organization; and 2) even if it were, it is a special character that can cause greif with computers.  A quick check on the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services website seems to indicate that the repository is actually "The DHHS Office of Vital Records".  So, perhaps we could use "Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services Office of Vital Records"

... and of course, don't forget the trailing period.

So, my suggested citation would be:

-

Nebraska State Department of Health - Division of Vital Statistics, certificate of delayed birth no. 2-135102 (1949), Viola Florence Gross born 4 February 1904, recorded 10 December 1949; Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services Office of Vital Records, Lincoln.

-

Now that I have put my thoughts on the web for public scrutiny, I am eager to see opinons from the experts.  :^)

     - Brad

Submitted byEEon Thu, 03/19/2015 - 17:43

Brian and Brad,

We just love seeing researchers think through the issues and make decisions about what needs to be recorded.  There is no one set pattern that fits every state and every time frame. The only way to ensure that we capture the appropriate information for the record we are using is to (a) know the basic pattern; and (b) analyze the record set for deviances that may be needed.

With regard to Brian's original question (Why the county is not traditionally cited in a state-level certificate that is identified by a specific document number), Brad is on the right track. When a state interfiles certificates for sundry counties, using one numerical sequence statewide, the certificate number number is the key element. Beyond that, we have to provide only enough detail to identify the specific individual. If we were citing a birth or death that occurred in a major city, where multiple individuals of the same name might die on the same day, then a location would be advisable. And, of course, in our own working notes, we may add as much to the citation as we want to add to aid our personal research. 

As a rule: EE focuses upon what the essentials for input normally are; and it explores many quirks and exceptions, but certainly not all possible variances and circumstances. Beyond that, we encourage users to do exactly what you are doing: thoughtfully analyze the record set and the situation.

Submitted byBrian Gon Sat, 03/21/2015 - 00:45

Thank you both for your comments.  I now understand why the standard citation is constructed as it is.

This delayed certificate has a few quirks:

  1. The certificate does not have pre-printed location for an identifying number.  I have two certified copies of this certificate - one issued in 1956 and one in 2008.  Only the copy from 2008 has the number.  It's not clear what that number really represents.
  2. The certificate was issued Dec 10, 1946 by a county judge in Cheyenne Co.
  3. The certificate was filed Dec. 27, 1946 at the Dep't of Health - Vital Statistics in Lincoln
  4. The actual birth was Feb. 4, 1904 in Clay Co.

I'm now tending to leave much of that additional information out of the citation itself.  I've picked up some of Brad's suggestions (thank you, Brad!).  Here's what I'm now thinking:

Nebraska State Department of Health - Division of Vital Statistics, certificate of delayed birth registration, unnumbered [2-135102 stamped on upper right of face] (1949), certified copy dated 6 Aug 2008, Viola Florence Shupe, born 4 Feb 1904; Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Vital Records, Lincoln.

A few comments:

  1. I added the comma between "registration" and "unnumbered" merely because the citation didn't sound right without it.
  2. I added the number in editorial brackets to indicate there was some sort of identifying number added to the certificate
  3. I included the birth date because I wasn't confident that the number could be relied on to find the certificate
  4. I decided the actual date of issuance or filing wasn't really necessary so I just included the year
  5. I added the date of the certified copy since I knew the stamped number didn't always exist on the certificate.
  6. I corrected the name.  Oops!  Sorry grandma!
  7. I just like that comma after the name.  Don't ask me why.  :-)

The citation defnitely feels more to-the-point than my original did.  It now contains only necessary information.

Thank you again for your helpful comments.  I'd appreciate any additional comments you might have.

Brian Gross

Submitted byEEon Sat, 03/21/2015 - 10:28

Brian, life in the research lane would definitely be easier if documents didn't have all those "quirks." You've though through the issues well. EE is not going to rubber-stamp your citation, because we never do that for a document we haven't used. However, there are a couple of points we might comment on. 

  • Editorial brackets are not used to enclose data or numbers that are on the document itself. They would be used only if we introduce that number from elsewhere.  They are used only if we add something into the middle of material we are quoting exactly.  When we construct a citation for a document like this, we aren't quoting exactly. We are choosing bits and pieces of data to construct the citation we feel is appropriate. What you are adding there is a parenthetical statement, using information that is on the document, so parentheses would be the appropriate punctuation.
  • I'm not sure what you meant at Point 6 about correcting the name, so I'll give the general rule. When we cite a document, we cite the name exactly as it appears on the document. If we feel the document errs, then we add a parenthetical statement to say what we think the name should be.

Submitted byBrian Gon Sat, 03/21/2015 - 11:37

Thank you so much for your continuing help, to me and everyone on this forum!

I read EE 2.58 for guidance on the parentheses, but somehow missed 2.70.  It gives the details for what you just clearly summarized.

Yes, the name is now exactly what is on the certificate.  I'd just carelessly written her married name on the original citation!

Thank you again for your guidance.

Brian

 

 

 

Submitted byateelaon Fri, 07/09/2021 - 18:31

In following any of the above citations for a vital record that you receive from a repository is there any need to state that it was delivered to you or is now a part of whatever you call your collection of documents that you have ordered over the last 30 years?

I ask to have an answer for my ProGen class at our next meeting.  A couple of peer reviews are stating that I should let them know what I am looking at.  It is not an online image, so I thought I was telling them what I was looking at with a standard citation for a vital record from the State of California (or whatever).  Is that correct? Just second guessing myself, so am curious of your opinion.

Submitted byEEon Mon, 07/26/2021 - 09:45

ateela, my apologies for not seeing your question on a posting from yesteryear.  My office was dismantled for more than a week and I'm just now catching up.

If we personally received a document from a repository from which we ordered it or imaged it, we do not cite it to our collection. We cite it to the repository that provided it. 

If we "inherit" a document from someone else, then the chain of custody from that repository has been broken. We cannot say for certain how the other person received the document or from whom they received it. All we can say is that we have the document in our own possession now and that we obtained it from XYZ who reports that it came from thus-and-such.